I was interested to read Fr Z's post on parish membership. It's something we struggle with as a family. Last Sunday by circumstance we attended 10 am Mass at our territorial parish in La Crosse. They were also hosting a softball tournament over the weekend (I found it odd game times on Sunday needlessly started at 9 a.m. and seemed to discourage Mass attendance). Part way through the homily the priest stepped aside* and let lay theologian from Viterbo, Tom Thibodeau, give the rest of the homily(which was passionate and terrifying). We almost walked out. Don't worry, it is on Youtube for anyone to watch, and displayed on the parish website. He did this at all weekend Masses, not just one. Believe it or not, I was the one that wanted to stay(well I had to play at 11 am right after Mass, just call me Judas). Plus, through the years I've seen some pretty bad stuff, and this wasn't the worst. At any rate, the talk was something about the new parish mission statement which was prominently on display next to the altar in a frame. And for the record, there are alot of young, small, Catholic families that attend there as well. The point is, I would move if I was required to register at that parish. I know good people who attend there. I have found in the past the priest to be actually quite solid, all organ music now. But I vote with my feet. Always have. And unfortunately always will. I am quite impressed that Mr. Berres sticks it out at his home parish, despite, well, bad stuff from his priest. It requires a virtue I have not obtained.
Point being, we recently joined a new parish in La Crosse. One of the reasons we haven't really found a home is that we are Traditionalists(of the obedient type). We would like our children to receive First Communion at a Traditional Latin Mass. In fact, we also hold the extreme view that we'd like our children to be baptized in the Traditional rite. Our bishop does perform the Traditional rite of Confirmation so he seems to be accepting of the practice. That doesn't mean we think there's something wrong with the Ordinary Form either. I'm not one of these angry, fist-shaking traddy's that's in the back of church with a notebook scribbling frantically when a priest stutters during a prayer. I'm one who discovered a pearl and cherishes it. I don't know Latin, but I like to learn to sing the ordinary chants from the pew(it's not as hard as you think). From attending the TLM for a few years now, I can sing most of the Credo(III) from memory. I'm no expert, all I know is that experience of the ancient liturgy is one of which I want and need more.
I asked a priest with our last child's baptism if he would consider using the Traditional Rite. He was annoyed and told me he would do the entire rite in Latin but only in the Ordinary Form(and then left the room before I could reply). Here's the thing, I don't prefer the old way because it's in Latin. If I had a choice of attending the Extraordinary Form almost entirely in English or the Ordinary Form entirely in Latin, I would go to the Extraordinary Form Mass. So now I know that is not a normal question to ask a diocesan priest unless I know him really well. He may have simply been unfamiliar with it, and not necessarily opposed to it but I never got an explanation. Our forthcoming baby baptism will also be in the Ordinary Form at our new parish. Not all of us have a St. Agnes parish or a Madison Cathedral parish which are happy to accommodate for either Extraordinary or Ordinary forms. It would seem if I hold these "extremist" views, I should seek out a religious order who "specializes" in them. It has been easy for me to see why people "fled" to the SSPX through the years with a helpful push(and no I wouldn't join even if they reconcile).
Yes, I know, Summorum Pontificum. There are no diocesan priests assigned to this area who have the training. Hence, I appreciate Fr. Z's call for priests to learn the Extraordinary Form - even if no one has yet requested it. Some priests are open to learning it but need to find the time; I think the FSSP has a week long boot camp or something like that of which at least one priest from this diocese has availed himself to. At any rate, there is no ideal diocesan parish in the La Crosse area for the Traditionalist. This usually is a shock to young families that have moved to the area expecting the diocese to be a bastion of traditionalism from the influence of the Cardinal. I have at times played with the idea of moving somewhere in the area where that type of parish would be closer. But for the time being, I will sit and wait, and vote with my feet when the time arises.
*Just in case I have someone think this is an acceptable practice; from the GIRM:
66. The Homily should ordinarily be given by the Priest Celebrant himself or be entrusted by him to a concelebrating Priest, or from time to time and, if appropriate, to the Deacon, but never to a lay person.* In particular cases and for a just cause, the Homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate.
16 comments:
Why would you not join an SSPX parish even if they reconcile? That seems very odd. I go to an FSSP parish in my city and many of the people there go back and forth between the SSPX chapel and the FSSP parish. I am much more similar in temperament and religious experience to parishioners at my FSSP parish or the SSPX chapel then I am to the parishioners at my territorial parish, which is five minutes away. I have seen plenty of cranky trads, and my wife is "allowed" to wear pants, etc. I just find it off that you would not attend mass at an SSPX chapel if they reconcile.
Thanks!
Marc
Well that's not to say I would never in the future, but I am wary of the years spent outside of regular relationship with Rome would cause some Williamsonesque thought within the order. If I investigated and found that not to be the case, I would consider it.
That makes perfect sense! Thanks for replying. I think you would find that the Williamson contingent is smaller that the anti-Catholic media would have you believe. The years of operating extra-canonically have certainly taken their toll, and that will be a huge obstacle to reconciliation and/or reintegration.
Thanks for this great post BC. I know it does not have the status of a "Parish" but the Tridentine Mass is alive and well at the shrine yes? Is it possible one of the priests there can help you with the baptism?
As for your overall theme, truly in a sense the most 'traditional' thing of all is to loyally stick to the territorial parish in good times and bad. The Catholic world is full of good men and women like Mr. Berres and I have noticed they can be found at every parish I have ever visited. Not to be too melodramatic about it but when I am at a 'trendy' Parish I think about young St. John, standing at the foot of the cross even when the other apostles had fled. That said, I just no longer have the resilience to put up with a lot of the craziness, I too "vote with my feet" part of this may be a product of our American consumer culture mentality, but without the aid of a solid priest and reverent liturgy, my spiritual life falls short. God bless those who tough it out for the greater glory, may their patience be rewarded 100 fold.
On a different topic, I am surprised you got kind of rude treatment from the priest (getting walked away from in a conversation.) I doubt you are one to play the "do you have any idea who I am card?" but I have seen even good priests hold back on good things (like bringing back Eucharistic processions or having a FEW of the parts of the Mass, Gloria, Sanctus,etc. in Latin) out of fear that some "influential" parishioner, along the lines of Mrs. so-and-so just won't stand for it and she runs the balloon stand at the parish festival/donated 500 bucks to the parish in 1997/ is on the finance council/is the grandmother of that girl who plays piano at Mass on Christmas/ trains the EMs/ has been teaching the confirmation class since the 70s etc. whatever.
I don't think my observations in this regard are isolated. In other words, some people who do pretty lackluster jobs but have done a good job making themselves seem like the glue that holds everything together are great at securing for themselves an inordinate sphere of influence. So you'd think that a guy who runs a, let's admit it, pretty widely read and influential blog, would at-least get a complete conversation. His cutting of you off is what I would call "clericalism"(yes that did survive Vatican II,oh did it ever!)
Heck if nothing else the demographics, young male, married, with young children, who goes to Mass should get you some kind of affirmative action.
It is surprising that Bishop Burke never really got a Tridentine Mass going in LaCrosse, it would be no issue to get this baptism worked out if you lived in Milwaukee, Green Bay or Madison.
Why would you cave in to a hard-hearted priest over something as important as the sacraments? I'd be much more forceful with him, filing a grievance with the bishop if he refuses. As long as you refuse to enforce your rights these NO priests will continue to be belligerent. Make more trouble for them to refuse than to give in. Heck, just to shake him up a bit, I'd tell him to do it in the EF form or you'll baptize the child yourself (which would be valid).
OTH, you could call the ICK and they'd take care of you. An extra 1/2 hour drive is not too big a cost for a sacrament.
From attending the TLM for a few years now, I can sing most of the Credo(III) from memory. I'm no expert
Yup. That's the point of Chant Ordinaries.
Ooooh, the scary scary 'Williamson contingent.'
jvc, I liked your comments, not sure why you removed them.
Anon, yes, the Shrine has a very nice TLM, we usually attend there. They unfortunately cannot do other sacraments like baptism because it is not a parish. LOL, I don't think probably any priests from the La Crosse area read this blog; I should start showing up in a limo or something. I totally understand the let's not offend the donors card; one of the main reasons the Cathedral will never be spruced up. La Crosse is a weird town. I'm hoping my new parish can grow into something like what is available in other diocesan seats.
Cassandra, as I said, it's not an unwillingness(necessarily) as it is a lack of training, hence the call for priests to learn both forms. ICK is definitely a real choice. But the Extraordinary Form doesn't belong to certain religious orders, but to the whole Church. Diocesan priests should receive formation(and diocese should be providing the opportunity).
Dad29, I've read the prominence of the Low Mass with no singing is one of the trends that inspired Vatican II in the first place. The Mass was meant to be sung.
servo, excommunication is not cool.
BC -
I'm inclined to agree with Marc. I don't know why you would take such a polarized view. In our city, we are blessed with Traditional diocesan Parishes and several which provide the 'Extraordinary Form'. In addition to these, we have a Society Chapel, which pre-dates anything our city currently enjoys. If it weren't for the diligent stance to preserve Catholic Tradition by the Society over the past several decades, none of these Traditional families would exist today.
In essence, there is no difference in the preservation of Catholic Tradition, whether it be in communities 'allowed' by a local diocese or where it is maintained by the Society. And, yes, there are many cranky traddy Catholics, as there are just as many cranky liberal Catholics. That's an easy one.
Not sure in what context you mention 'excommunication is not cool' ... neither the Society, nor it's Priests (including Williamson) are excommunicated and the Mass is indeed valid, but you are correct in alluding to the fact that there are dangers of being outside of regularization for so long. People get comfortable with how that feels and they shouldn't. Theologically brilliant prelates like Bishop Williamson are the conservative equivalent of any liberal Cardinal or theologian you can think of by virtue of his lack of Christian charity and obedience, but in the same vein, Churchmen who drove the recent negotiations into train wreck are no better, and neither seem to have much desire for unity, for the good of the Church or the good of souls.
I know it's probably a minority view, but the Church desperately needs the SSPX back in full regularization, just as the Society will only fully blossom in kind. It's unfortunate and to be prayed for.
/s
Forward-Slash_S,
I think one of the things about the SSPX that really turns a lot of people off is that attitue that we basically all "owe" them, for if not for them the Tridentine Mass would have totally died out they basically claim. This idea more or less really plays into the hands of liberals in the Church who are then able to dismiss anything the Holy Father does to promote the Tridentine Mass as simply overtures to a few cranky throwbacks (not my characterization but the usual liberal one.)It puts tradition into a ghetto. The fact is the Tridentine Mass is a treasure for the universal church and there are plenty of people who are drawn to, love, and promote the Tridentine Mass who have never set foot in an SSPX chapel and don't intend to under the current 'status quo.' The individual who has done more than anyone for the Tridentine Mass in the post Vatican II era is none other than Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict. There are Tridentine Masses in places that have never had an SSPX presence. The survival of the Tridentine Mass, and the Church for that matter was never hinging on a couple thousand people in North America and a handful of European cities.
@ Anon 6:40 ... you know, I had the same view you do about the Society a couple of years ago, and I could go point by point in all that you say because a measure of it is based on prejudice and inaccuracy. Indeed the Holy Father has done much, as has Bishop Fellay for that matter, but there are those that surround both who fight against it. With confidence it would have been very likely that if it weren't for the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre, there would not be any semblance or preservation of Tradition within the Catholic Church as we know it today. That would mean no FSSP, no Transalpine Redemptorists, no Institute of Christ the King. God in His providence has provided these and other enclaves of Tradition to flourish, and allowed them to flourish ... if anyone were 'owed' anything, it would be Him.
I would rather recommend that you learn and understand the history and facts from sources that can provide them. There are many good writings, but a good primer would be Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (three parts). You can read all you want from a non-Society perspective (and for a rounded knowledge, you should), but if you were a Baptist wanting to understand Catholicism, would you base your entire understanding of it on Baptist publications?
/s
For the record, I am not "anti-SSPX". But if Williamson does not resolve with the rest of the society, he will be excommunicated. I do want them within the Church and think that they can do tremendous good(I don't see other traditional orders starting schools like they have). I am not "scared" of the Society. I do not agree with the argument that there is something wrong or non-binding about the VII council. I do agree with the approach that this council must be interpreted according to all the other councils of the Church.
I have told others that I don't think Summorum Pontificum ever happens without the SSPX, but there is no way to know for sure.
But also, the point of this post was to affirm Fr. Z's post on the need for priests to learn both forms of the Roman Rite.
Badger, speaking nonsense is not cool. The 'excommunications' were revoked, you know. If they hit him again, then at least you can say that again, but for now it's BS.
Since he rejects the authority of the head of his own order, it can be assumed that he will make his permanent break from Rome. It's pretty clear from most watching the situation that +Williamson has made his decision. I pray for unity and I pray for him.
Post a Comment